Lords Sitting of 18 July 1853

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Dacre, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1aElections; General Board of Health (No. 3).
2a Colonial Church Regulation.
Reported.—Copyholds.
3a Holme Reservoirs (Ne. 2); Taxing Officer, Common Law Business (Ireland).

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE—QUESTION.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: My Lords, I wish to call the attention of your
344
Lordships to a matter which I think is of some consequence at the present moment, and to ask a question relating to it, of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Some of your Lordships have already observed on the tenor and language of the two notes which have appeared from the Russian Government—the two circular notes addressed to their diplomatic agents throughout Europe. I will make no observation on the tenor and subject of those notes, except to say that I do not agree in the premises laid down in many parts of those documents, and therefore I cannot agree in the arguments which have been founded on what I consider to be erroneous premises. But, my Lords, I have been waiting with considerable impatience—and I think your Lordships must have joined in the same feeling—for the answer on the part of Her Majesty's Government to those two circular notes. I have been myself particularly anxious to avoid embarrassing Her Majesty's Government in any way, by any observations relating to the unfortunate occurrences which are now going on in the East; but I think it is now time, my Lords, for the dignity of this country, and I think it is fair on the part of the Opposition, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have made a reply to those notes; or whether if they have not, they intend to make a reply, and whether they intend to publish it, in the same manner the Russian Government adopted when they circulated those documents? I think it is less objectionable for me to ask, and for the noble Earl to answer, the question to-day, because the French Government, which is now in alliance with us in carrying out the object which we have in common, has made a very able, a very firm, but yet a very calm answer to those circular notes. I think that if Her Majesty's Government delay their answer, they will run the risk of being misapprehended and misunderstood—for silence proverbially gives consent; and as we have been already told by the noble Earl that he does not agree in all the statements made in those documents, silence may here be the cause of further misapprehension. It may be supposed that the Government are unable to answer those notes; they may be accused even of fearing to answer them, under an alarm of further proceedings on the part of that powerful nation which is now exciting the attention of the whole of Europe. For these reasons, my Lords, I

345
rise to ask my noble Friend opposite, if he will, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, state to the House and to the country whether any answer has been made to those notes—one or both of them—and whether, if they have done so, they intend to make their rely public—however unusual that manner of treating diplomatic documents may be—whether they intend to make them public in the same way as Russia and France have done?
The EARL of CLARENDON: I certainly admit that my noble Friend has carefully abstained from embarrassing Her Majesty's Government in any way in the important question which now engages public attention. I think my noble Friend is perfectly aware of the reasons, and the only reasons, why we have wished to delay and postpone any discussion on this subject. We have done so in the interests of peace, and not to impair those chances, such as they are, of bringing this question to a peaceable conclusion. My noble Friend must be aware that the mode adopted by the Government of this country and by Parliament is very different, in obtaining or asking information on questions like the present from that which necessarily obtains in Russia and in France. It is consequently easy for the Russian Government and the French Government to give the public such information as they think necessary at the time when they may think it most convenient to do so. But it is the practice in his country to lay the papers bearing on my subject altogether and at one time before Parliament. This is the course that the Government have undertaken to adopt, and the whole of those papers relating to this subject will be laid together before your Lordships' House, and before the other House of Parliament. And with respect to the two notes to which my noble Friend has alluded, and the doubts that he has thrown out as to the capacity or courage of Her Majesty's Government to answer them on the first point, it certainly s not for me to pronounce an opinion; but as to any fear of answering them, I hope my noble Friend and your Lordships will rest perfectly satisfied that there has not my such apprehension at any time existed, either in my mind or on the part of any Member of the Government. To the first if these two notes, no regular answer has been sent, because the greater part of its contents alluded to the negotiations and the proceedings which were originated with the French Embassy at Constantinople, and the
346
negotiations to which they afterwards led; and the remainder was forestalled by the progress which the communications referring to the question had made. The note was, however, answered in substance, although nothing was sent in the form of a regular answer to it. The second circular note of Count Nesselrode was one of a very different character, and which certainly did require an answer. It was immediately answered, and that answer was forwarded to the Court of St. Petersburg. My Lords, I have only further to add that that answer was in entire conformity with the note of the French Government, as indeed, I may add, the whole of our proceedings connected with the question have been.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: My Lords, I certainly have no doubt that, as my noble Friend has chosen to answer those notes, he has done so in a way perfectly satisfactory to this country; but I think my noble Friend is mistaken in drawing an analogy between those circular notes and ordinary diplomatic correspondence between two Governments. The latter are naturally kept secret until the proper time arrives and they are laid upon your Lordships' table. But these circular notes are not of the same nature—they are not of the nature of private correspondence; they are an appeal to all Europe—to the whole public; they are published in the St. Petersburgh Gazette, and are addressed, in fact, and intended to be read by every creature who can read in Europe. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government are taking an erroneous view of the case, and that they are bringing themselves into risk of considerable misapprehension and obloquy both abroad and at home, by not answering these particular notes in the same manner in which they have been delivered.
LORD BEAUMONT: I hope that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will not object to give an answer to a question which I wish to put to him, if his doing so will not be accompanied with inconvenience to the public service. I wish to ask my noble Friend when he expects to be able to lay the papers referring to this question before Parliament, and in how short a time he hopes to be enabled to put us in possession of what the Government have done. I am the more inclined to put this question in consequence of the extraordinary position in which Parliament and the country at large are placed with regard to any knowledge of what is actually going on in this

347
matter, because, while the utmost publicity is given to the policy, the actions, the intentions, and the opinions of Russia, the most complete mystery involves the opinions, the proceedings, and the policy of this country. It is true that we are told that the Governments of France and of this country are associated in the interest of the Porte, and in the interests of peace, and that there is reason to hope that Austria, and Prussia have taken a part with the Governments of France and England fur the maintenance of the independence of the Porte and of the peace of Europe. I hope this is the case:—but Russia is acting as if no negotiations were going on at all. While we are told that negotiations are being carried on with the view of preserving peace, Russia is actually making war. This is a most awkward position for countries like France and England to be placed in; and I think it is only reasonable that inquiry should be made as to how long Parliament and the country are to be kept in suspense, and how soon the country may know the views and intentions of the Government, and what steps they have taker to carry out the object of preserving peace or of—if necessary—checking the possible progress of Russia. I wish, therefore, to ask my noble Friend if he can state it how short a time he expects the negotiations to be so far advanced as to justify him in putting Parliament and the country in possession of some information as to what steps have been already taken?
The EARL of CLARENDON: I can assure my noble Friend that it is at in small sacrifice to Her Majesty's Government that we have asked for a postponement of ally discussion on this question or that we have delayed placing before the House the fullest information on the subject. We feel that Parliament and the public have a perfect right to be informed in the manner in which my noble Friend points out; and it has been our desire that there should be no unnecessary delay. I cannot go over again the reasons which have induced us to ask for this delay; but in answer to my noble Friend, a few days indeed I may say a very few days, will be sufficient to show whether the negotiation, on foot will succeed or not; but, whether they succeed or not, as soon as these fey days are over, I can promise your Lord ships that all the papers shall be laid on the table of your Lordships' House.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE: I wish to know from my noble Friend if any
348
information has been received at the Foreign Office of the Russians having assumed the administration of the civil government of Moldavia, as well as the military occupation of that province?—because I have seen it stated in the newspapers that the post-office has been taken possession by the Russian authorities, and that the Russian troops have advanced to Danube? If that be so, it is not merely a military occupation for the purpose of carrying on negotiations afterwards; "for it appears that the capital of the province has been taken possession of—that the whole administration of the Government has been seized by the Russians—and that they make Moldavia, and not Bessarabia, the base of their operations in advancing to the Danube. It is necessary, I think, that we should know whether the troops of Russia are in advance towards the Danube, or whether they are, according to the latest accounts, simply in the occupation of Jassy and the adjacent parts?
The EARL of CLARENDON: We have no information of the kind to which my noble Friend has alluded. I see it stated in the newspapers that the post-office has been seized, and that the Russian authorities have taken on themselves other administrative functions: but no such information as that has reached Her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, we have reason to believe that no advance towards the Danube has been made, and that the Hospodar is still in the exercise of his functions. Your Lordships will recollect that the manifesto of Prince Gortschakoff, the Russian commander, on entering the principalities, enjoined the people to obey the existing authorities, and promised that there should be no disturbance of existing institutions; and I think, therefore, it is not probable that so shortly after the issue of that proclamation such a proceeding as that to which my noble Friend has alluded can have taken place.
LORD BEAUMONT: I think you are somewhat too sanguine.

TRANSPORTATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved—"That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill."
The BISHOP of OXFORDbegged to express his dissent from this suggestion. In the course of a short conversation which was inaudible, Lord Colchester was understood to have suggested the Falkland Islands as

349
suitable for the reception of convicts. To such a proposition he could not give his consent. There should be a sufficiently large and virtuous society in the place to which their convicts were sent, to be able to take up into the general moral circulation of the country the bad blood which the convicts would bring into it; and the Falkland Islands were, he conceived, in want of that essential quality. They would require a large force to guard them, and the place would be essentially a prison, and not a place for the reformation of criminals. They should improve upon their reformatory system at home, because the alterations introduced into the management of the Pentonville Prison had been signally injurious, and tended in the long run to increase the expense and defeat the very purpose for which the nation, at a great expense, founded that prison. He would urge upon the Government the propriety of returning to the system which had been originally in successful operation in that prison.
On Question, agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
On Clause 8,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had already stated the nature of the Bill, and that its object was to meet, as far as the nature of things would admit, the difficulties of the case. At present transportation implied three distinct stages of punishment: first, imprisonment under the separate system; secondly, employment at very severe labour on the public works, with reformatory discipline for a certain portion of the sentence; and, thirdly, transmission to the Colonies generally with tickets of leave. From that last portion of the sentence they were now cut off, and the Executive Government had now to propose a substitute for it. It was intended that the punishment in the first and second stages, by imprisonment and hard labour on the public works for a certain period, should be continued, and if the parties were ill conducted, the labour on the public works might be continued until the end of the sentence; but as an inducement to the convicts to conduct themselves well, the Government proposed to adopt a middle course between absolute pardon and the continuance of severe labour on the public works. The great difficulty was, that if they gave a man an unconditional ticket of leave in this country, he would in all probability return back to his old haunts, and become
350
again involved in crime. The great advantage of transportation was, that it afforded a place in which employment could be given to a person of damaged character; and labour being in great request, he might not only obtain employment, but become a useful member of society, and there was not the temptation which a return to his old haunts offered him. The only mode which presented itself to the Government of supplying the want that was created by the discontinuance of transportation, was to provide as it were a colony, or at least a place in their own country where they could enjoy the same benefits as in a colony—that is, where labourers damaged in their character might obtain employment. This was a very serious question to decide upon; for, unless it were adopted with great safeguards, they would be interfering with the labour market. But what was proposed, was, that upon the public works at Gosport 400 or 500 labourers, not convicts, should be employed, and that at Portland as many more should be received, making altogether, say, 1,000 between them. It was suggested, that, before their terms of punishment expired, the opportunity should be given them of obtaining employment at harder work and lower wages than other persons, so that if a ticket of leave were given them, for instance, for fifty miles from Portland, it should not be said that persons were turned loose who could do nothing but plunder, because the means of work would have been provided them. They thought it best thus to define the limits; and it could not be said that they were throwing upon the inhabitants of the districts loose persons who could do nothing but plunder, because they would not do so without providing the means of giving them some work, and would thereby remove from them the objection that they were obliged to steal. They might gradually make them fit to be received into other places where they were not under a sort of ban; but great discretion should be left to the Secretary of State in dealing with them, and great hopes were entertained that as their characters became improved, other persons would be willing to take them; and, if so, the tickets of leave would be so extended as to enable them to be employed by those persons. The great apprehension in dealing with criminals was, that if they were turned loose in that great metropolis, they would return back to their old haunts. They would guard against that by direct-

351
ing that they should not come within a certain distance of the metropolis, and that they should not be admitted to certain districts into which experience showed they should be restricted from entering. The great hope was, that, after going through the reformatory system in the prison, and, in the next place, the hard labour on the public works, they would be qualified to work in an orderly manner on their tickets of leave, and would become gradually absorbed into society as reformed characters.
The EARL of HARROWBYwas understood to suggest, that at the expiration of the sentence the party should not be discharged without receiving a certain sum of money to keep him from want, until he got employment. He also was understood to suggest that evil would arise from so large a number of convicts being congregated together.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the object was to disperse them as much as possible; but, at the same time, it was essential to be able to tell them that when they ceased to be convicts they would get employment, and would not be obliged to plunder. The object of the clause was, in fact, to give a conditional pardon, upon condition they should not go beyond certain districts. They proposed to tell them that if they did not get work elsewhere they should not go and thieve, and would get employment on the public works. Those persons would not be mixed in their work with the absolute convicts, and it was anticipated that they would obtain work in the harvest fields. All the arrangements were more or less tentative, the object being to enable those persons to obtain employment notwithstanding their damaged characters. In the first instance, probably no one but the Government would employ them; but it was hoped that the stain would gradually wear away, and that they would be able to obtain ordinary employment.
The EARL of HARROWBYrepeated that it would be by no means desirable to accumulate large bodies of convicts in particular localities. He thought the inhabitants of such districts would complain very loudly of such a thing. He would suggest that the convicts be sent out of the country, and that a certain punishment be imposed upon them if they returned.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthought the noble Earl had misapprehended the object of the clauses proposed, which were not at all constructed with a view to
352
compel the congregating together of those persons in these particular localities. When they were turned adrift out of prison, it was important to furnish them with the means of subsistence; and the object of the Bill was to supply them, in the first instance, with that means of subsistence, and to supply them with every possible motive for leading an improved life in other parts of the country than those which had been the scene of their crimes.
After a few words from the Earl of CHICHESTER, Which were inaudible,
The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, he thought that the plan altogether was exceedingly vague. By proposing certain localities where those convicts were to be located together, the Government would be placing the inhabitants of those places precisely in the same position as the inhabitants of the colonies who had protested against our sending any more of our convicts to those colonies. He was sure that if the system were carried out it would utterly fail, and that they would have similar demonstrations from the inhabitants of those places to which the convicts would be sent, as they had had already from many of our colonies.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, the noble Earl had assumed an entirely false position. It was not at all proposed to congregate the convicts on one spot; on the contrary, it was proposed to give those convicts every opportunity of going to other parts of the country—to every part, indeed, except the scenes of their former crimes, or some other locality from which, by peculiar circumstances, it might be desirable to exclude them. He concurred in much that had been said by his noble Friend on the cross benches (the Earl of Harrowby), but he also believed that, looking at the state of the labour market in this country, those persons would find no difficulty at all in getting employment. The meaning of the clause was, that no man, on coming out of prison, should have it in his power to say he was unable to obtain work, and therefore was compelled to steal; but he thought, from the demand which existed throughout the country for labour, it would not be necessary to resort to the public works to any extent at all. Even under the present system precautions were taken on this point; for when persons were discharged from prison they had money in their pockets, the proceeds of their own work while in gaol; and he believed the system might even be carried to a greater

353
extent by enabling those persons to remove themselves from the scenes of their former vices.
The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, he believed that the practical working of the clause would be this—that when those con victs came out of prison nobody would employ them, and they would, therefore, be necessarily congregated upon certain public works.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHwas strongly of opinion that a proposal for the establishment of a uniform system of police throughout the country should go paripassu with a measure for turning out those, convicts upon the community. These persons, though in a state of incipient virtue might require the policeman's baton to control them, and the establishment of uniform and efficient body of police through out the country would be imperatively demanded. He thought the same objection would prevail among the virtuous society in England against taking in bad blood as had existed in our colonies; and he did hope that, while the position of those who had committed crimes was taken into account, some consideration would also be had for the uncontaminated portion of society, and that they would be protected from the consequences which might result from the establishment of such a system as that now in contemplation.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCHhoped that any measure for the establishment of uniform police system would be extended to Scotland. The letting loose of so many convicts upon society would be productive of the most serious evils, unless the police system were placed upon a sound and efficient basis.
Clause agreed to. Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received to-morrow.

INDIA—PETITION.
The EARL of ALBEMARLErose to present two petitions on the subject of Indian grievances. The first was from the Bristol Chamber of Commerce, praying that the monoply of salt exercised by the East India Company in India be abolished, but that, if it should be considered still expedient to levy a tax on this necessary of life, it should be in such a form as to press less heavily on the poor of India than the present system of taxation. He should have been content to lay this petition on the table without comment, had he not thought that Her Majesty's Government
354
were disposed to underrate the extreme oppressiveness of this tax. When he last addressed their Lordships on this subject, he had confined himself to the incidence of the tax as it affected Bengal; but upon the present occasion he wished to make a few observations in regard to the manner in which it operated in Madras. Under the Native government of Madras, the tax was one-half of the selling price, or 1l. 4s. 6d. out of a selling price of 2l. 9s. per garce—a measure of 10,000lbs. Prior to 1806 our Government in Madras raised the tax to 3l. 5s. the garce; and in 1806, having taken the whole control of the salt department into their own hands, they raised the tax to 7l. On a subsequent occasion they again raised it to 10 l. 5s. per garce; and in 1844, when the transit duties were abolished, they simulaneously raised it to the enormous sum of 18 l. per garce, or more than eight times as much as it was under the Native government. The consequence was that the consumption was entirely stopped, and they were obliged to reduce the tax to 12 l., or five times as much as it had been under the Native administration—at which point it now remained. A Government monopoly, he believed, never, under any circumstances, could be a cheap one; but there were a variety of other causes, both natural and artificial, to enhance the price of salt in Bengal. In the first place, the material out of which it was made was by no means adapted for culinary purposes; it contained a great quantity of that bitter compound, familiar, perhaps, to their Lordships as Epsom salts. The manufacturers of it were in a partial state of slavery; they were among the most miserable of the Bengalese, possessing no capital of their own, subsisting and carrying on their manufacture by the advances made to them by the East India Company. Now, to would compare this with time system of making salt in a county well known and very familiar to the noble Marquess who sat near him (the Marquess of Westminster), who had upon a former evening presented s petition from Northwich on this same subject. In Bengal the machinery of Manufacture was simply a number of earth pots piled one on the top of the other, heated by a fire made of straw, or such wood as could be found in the neighbouring jungle. In Cheshire, on the other hand, he salt was manufactured in large iron vats, heated with sea-coal fires, into which the saturated brine was pumped direct from

355
the spring. He contended that a manufacture such as that in Bengal ought entirely to cease, for it was quite impossible that it could compete either with Northwich, with the other improved systems of manufacture, or with the excellent and cheap salt of Madras, Balasore, or Bombay. If he might venture to suggest a plan, it would be, that the Government should abolish the monopoly of salt; that the salt manufacture in Bengal should be prohibited, in the same manner as we had prohibited the growth of tobacco in this country; he should propose to lower the tax to one-half, and that there should be a fixed uniform duty on all salt, whether imported from England or from any other foreign country. He would abolish, too, any duty upon salt from the Malabar or Coromandel coasts. He would apply the same principle which they had lately applied to the tea duties, and he was convinced that it would lead to increased consumption. It was very generally calculated that the quantity of salt consumed by every native in India was somewhere about 10lb. or 11lb. per head per annum; while, according to Mr. M'Culloch, in this country it was just double that, or about 22lb. If, then, they reduced the tax to one half, it was very fair to calculate they would have the same revenue as they had at present. He did not, however, propose to abolish the factories in Bengal all at once. With regard to the persons engaged in the manufacture, as he had before remarked, they were in a state of partial slavery; at the present moment no condition could be worse than theirs, and their labours could be rendered of much greater advantage to themselves and to their country by employing it on the cultivation of the neighbouring jungles. One great objection he had to the manufacture was the expense of the agencies, some of which cost 8,000 l. or 10,000 l. a year. Another objection was the smuggling: if the tax were reduced to a mere Customs duty, smuggling would become impossible, because of the greater size of the vessels which would have to be employed, and the fact that Calcutta was the only emporium to which it could be brought. The second petition with which he had been intrusted was from the East Indians of the Presidencies of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, at present residing in London, complaining of the grievances under which they and the community to which they belonged laboured in the existing state of the law. It complained of the violation of the
356
provision which the noble Marquess below (the Marquess of Lansdowne), who had introduced the Charter Act of 1833, would bear him out was the intention of the Government of that day, as expressed in the 87th clause, which provided that all offices of trust and emolument in the civil and military service should be open, without distinction, and without exception of caste, colour, or creed. That was the intention of the Government; but it had been made a perfect mockery under the present double and irresponsible government, and the East Indian community continued up to this time to be superseded by Europeans quite insufficient from standing, experience, or general knowledge of the habits and opinions of the people of the country, to discharge the duties of their position. Among this calumniated class of men there had been men of the highest eminence in all professions, and at the head of large mercantile firms. Many of them had received an education quite equal to that of Members of their Lordships' House. These petitioners complained that all these claims to be admitted to superior office had been overlooked, and they complained also of the ex parte evidence given by some of the Company's officials before their Lordships' Committee. He himself had been intimately acquainted with several persons of this class during his residence in India. One of them was General Stevenson, for many years Quartermaster General in India, who bore a very distinguished part in the late Pindarree war. Another was Colonel James Skinner, who had the merit of introducing into India that celebrated body of irregular cavalry—a body of men, he believed, equal, if not superior, in efficiency to the regular cavalry—at least, if only equal, they had the very great merit of costing 17 per cent less than the others. There was also General Jones, Commander in Chief at Bombay. As this class of persons had been spoken of in very disparaging terms by witnesses examined before their Lordships' Committee, he would take the liberty of quoting to them in opposition an authority quite equal, if not superior—that of Sir Charles Metcalfe, afterwards Lord Metcalfe. That noble Lord addressed the East Indian community, shortly before his departure, in the following terms:—
"That you should be considered, or consider yourselves, as a separate class, is greatly to be lamented; not less is it so that there should be any distinctions or separations of any kind in this empire. It must be the anxious wish of every

357
man connected with India that all classes, Native, East Indian, and European, should be united in one bond of brotherly love. If any feelings, too natural to be wondered at, caused by the division of foreigners, or difference of religious customs, manners, and education, render this union at present difficult or unattainable with respect to our native brethren, we can only hope that such difficulties may in time be surmounted by good government and the enjoyment of equal rights. But if your community, gentlemen, were to be regarded as separate, it is one of which you have much reason to be proud. Judging from what has come under my own observation, I am not aware of any community in which there is more respectability of character, or less apparently of crime or unworthy conduct. In official ability and efficiency you yield to none; and in all pursuits and professions, in arts and in arms, you have representatives of whom every community might justly boast. You have an extensive share in the public business connected with the administration of the Government of this country; and the acknowledgment of the value of your co-operation has long been established, is daily increasing, and cannot fail even tually to produce for you important and beneficial results."
The petitioners, also, further complained that, though Englishmen, they were deprived of the benefits of English law, and of the right of Habeas Corpus. They were subjected to Mahomedan or Hindoo law, and were even liable to corporal punishment according to it, at the will, not merely of an European, but also of a Native magistrate. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the petitions be referred to the Select Committee on Indian Territories.
Petitions referred to the Select Committee on the Government of Indian Territories.

IRISH NATIONAL SYSTEM OF EDUCATION.
The EARL of DONOUGHMORErose, according to notice, to call the attention of the House to the present condition of the system of National education in Ireland, and to move for a copy of the Resolution lately adopted by the Board of National Education, excluding the use of certain books from the schools under their management; and to ask whether, in consequence of such resolution, any and what members have resigned their seats at the Board. The noble Earl said the present was a subject which had been already on several occasions brought under the consideration of the other House of Parliament; and, therefore, the circumstances attendant on it—as well as the matter which his question professed to set forth—was fully in the possession of their Lordships. And perhaps he ought also to premise that
358
in adopting his present course he was not acting in concert with either any noble Lord in that House, or any hon. Member in the other House of Parliament who had previously directed attention to the subject. He, therefore, held himself individually and entirely responsible for whatever should fall from him, as he did not pretend to enunciate the opinions of any body of men. In order, then, to make plain the nature of the question which he was about to put, be hoped he might be permitted by their Lordships to sketch the system of education which had been in operation in Ireland for some twenty years past. The system of national education in Ireland was originally founded by his noble Friend the noble Earl lately at the head of Her Majesty's Government (the Earl of Derby); and the principle on which it was to be carried out, as set forth by the noble Earl, was, that it should be a system of united secular, but separate religious, instruction. It was not, however, intended that the religious should be entirely separated from the secular instruction; and he thought that was made evident from a portion of the letter of his noble Friend, dated the 10th of October, 1831. Well, the Board of Commissioners, which was formed to carry out the plan set forth by the noble Earl, immediately afterwards commenced operations. They published a number of educational works, which certainly, as far as the purposes of secular instruction were concerned, could not be too much praised; and these books had since been used, not only in their own schools, but they had been likewise most extensively used in this country and throughout the colonies. Indeed, there was scarcely a department of primary instruction which was not most fully considered by the Commissioners. Such being the case, it would at once be apparent to their Lordships that whatever objection was taken against the system of education pursued, that objection was not against the secular instruction, than which nothing could be more admirable; but the objection entirely rested upon the nature and amount and circumstances of the religious instruction. Now, at the time those most successful books to which he had just alluded were published, some books on religious subjects were also sent forth. He believed the Commissioners published four books or volumes of Selections from the Holy Scriptures, a volume of Sacred Poetry, and a book upon the Truth of Chris-

359
tianity, which was admitted to be the work of a right rev. Prelate, a distinguished member of the Board (the Archbishop of Dublin). Not very long, however, after the system was put into operation in Ireland, there was an alteration introduced which did not meet the views of a very large section of the clergy of the Established Church. They objected that religious and secular education were made altogether separate; and that the use of the Holy Scriptures was prevented at all times except at the time of religious instruction, and that the use of the religious works were not enjoined, but recommended. In order to provide rules for the management of the schools, the Commissioners prescribed that all ministers of religion, whatever their denomination, whether they signed the original application for the establishment of a school or not, should have access to the school one day in the week to communicate religious instruction to the children whose parents belonged to their particular denomination of Christians. And the Commissioners stated in their preface to the Scripture Lessons that they thus marked out particular passages, because they were in the hope of leading to a more general and more profitable perusal of the word of God; not that they were more important than the rest of the Scriptures, but that they were more on a level with the childrens' understanding, and also most fitted to be read under the direction of teachers not necessarily qualified, and certainly not recognised, as teachers of religion; that no passage had either been introduced or omitted under the influence of any particular view of Christianity, doctrinal or practical. The rule to which he had before alluded was afterwards altered, more particularly to meet the objections of ministers of the Presbyterian persuasion. The alteration thus introduced consisted in allowing to patrons a right to prohibit any religious instruction except such as themselves should approve of; so that while the patron might permit religious instruction to the children of his own denomination, he was entitled to preclude all others from obtaining it. In the third or fourth Report of the Commissioners it was stated that some Presbyterian ministers had objected to the rule which permitted ministers of any religion, whether they had subscribed to the schools or not, to attend the school on a certain day in the week to impart religious instruction; and the alteration made in the rule
360
consisted in this, that the minister might go to a school where the majority of the scholars were of his own denomination, and give religious instruction to them, and, at the same time, should have the right of preventing any other minister from giving any religious instruction in that school. Now he believed that was the most fatal mistake possible to make in carrying out what purported to be a united system of education. For what were the effects which followed? Why, that the Roman Catholic priest who might have obtained the aid of the Board had the power of prohibiting all religious instruction in the school except that in his own tenets; and so it was also with the Presbyterian minister, who also had his school, where those professing his own faith were exclusively instructed in religion, and some few of the clergy of the Established Church followed their example; so that, generally speaking, with the exception of the schools under the immediate management of the Board itself, the religious instruction was always of a distinct kind, only one religious system being inculcated in each school; so that about the year 1836, as many of their Lordships would remember, a right rev. Prelate was obliged to complain in writing that no religious education was imparted under the system, and that the Scripture Extracts were not generally introduced. The answer given by the Commissioners in their Report of 1836 was, that they were persuaded that the fact was otherwise; they stated that they had sent round their inspectors, and that out of 400 schools visited, in 380 they found the children reading the Extracts. Those schools were not particularly selected for visitation; it might therefore be expected that the extracts were read in an equal proportion of the schools which remained to be inspected, and therefore that they were used in more than four-fifths of the whole number. It was, therefore, plain that about that time the intention and wish of those who had the management of the system was, that a certain amount of religious instruction should be mixed up with the secular instruction. And that a feeling still prevailed amongst persons of high authority in this country that some religious instruction should be imparted, was evident from the language held by a Member of the present Government, at a meeting of one of the largest and best-known educational societies of England—the British and Foreign School Society. Lord John Rus-

361
sell was reported to have spoken thus on that occasion:—
"There are those who say that half a day or two days of the week, and the whole of the day on Sunday, may be given to religious teaching and instruction. They thus, as it were, give up two days for religious instruction, which is, in fact, the education of the soul, while they leave four days of the week for that which is secular education only. I say this is a most unhappy and most unwise division; that, neither in respect of time nor in respect of the subject, is that an education which the future nation of England ought to receive. I say that secular and religious education ought to be mixed together—that the instruction should be imparted to educate the body, the mind, and the soul together; and when this task is accomplished, then indeed you may be proud of your work."
Now he (the Earl of Donoughmore) would ask their Lordships seriously to consider whether the system of education now prevailing in Ireland was such a one as ought to meet support from any one holding the views which had been reported as held by the noble Lord in another place. He found from the Commissioners' Report of 1850 that there were 4,704 schools established, and that the children on the rolls of these amounted to 520,401; and if there were that number of children actually receiving instruction, undoubtedly it would represent a very large proportion of the population, it being equal to one in every thirteen of the population. But it had recently appeared that the attendance was only about forty-seven per cent of those upon the rolls. It further appeared that there were 147 of these schools under the management of clergymen in connexion with the Established Church; 2,778 under Roman Catholic clergymen; 479 under the Presbyterian, and 1,124 under lay proprietors. Of these 4,000 schools, 3,500 were under the management of the Roman Catholic clergy. Now, he believed that there was nothing which the people of England disliked so much as a sham, and he thought that a sham which showed that in these 3,500 schools the Roman Catholic religion, and that only, was taught—that it was not a mixed but an exclusively Roman Catholic education, accompanied by all the prejudice, bigotry, narrowness, and hatred of other creeds which unhappy distinguished religious difference in Ireland. He believed this country was prepared to make sacrifices in order to promote education in Ireland—everybody felt that nothing could be done for Ireland unless the people were taught, but let not that be done by pretending to do one thing and really doing
362
another. Let the people of England know that they were giving large sums to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland to teach the people of that country in the Roman Catholic faith. He did not object to that. On the contrary, he thought the thing should be done, and that aid should be given to the Roman Catholic clergy to instruct the people. But let not the people of England be told that they had gone to such an extent in teaching the Protestant religion; whereas, in point of fact, they had been defeated in their object, and that the effect of the system, in reality, was to give complete freedom to the Roman Catholic clergy, while the only persons oppressed were the clergy of the Established Church. If their Lordships wished to improve the system of education in Ireland—if, in their opinion, it was desirable to give all parties an equal share of the public money for the purposes of education—let all restrictions be removed, let no rules be established: but let every party give whatever instruction they pleased. It was absolutely necessary that the people should have instruction, and he would make any sacrifice to attain that end; but don't hold up a system which professed to give a certain guarantee, while it gave no guarantee whatever as regarded the spiritual education of the Roman Catholic population. The question, then, he wished to ask was, whether these religious books, the Scripture Lessons, and Lessons on the Truths of Christianity, which were evidently part of the original system of the National course of education, had been prohibited by the late resolution of the Board? If so, the whole foundation of the system was altered—in point of fact, the system no longer existed—and it would be much better that, as far as Government was concerned, the future course of education should be simply permissive. He also wished to ask whether a right rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin) and two other distinguished gentlemen, members of the Board, had resigned their seats in consequence of the determination to which the Board had come? He wished to speak with no disrespect of this right rev. Prelate, nor did he wish to lessen that influence which he derived from his high position in the Church, and his exertions in the maintenance and extension of this system of education; if it turned out, however, that the right rev. Prelate found it impossible to remain, and that ultramontane opinions

363
had broken in upon the Board, he could not but think that the Government would find it necessary to revise the whole system, and endeavour to devise some other system of education in Ireland which should be free from the objections to which the present plan was open, and obviate objections for the future. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
"That there be laid before this House a copy of the Resolution lately adopted by the Board of National Education in Ireland, excluding the use of certain books for the schools under their management."
The EARL of ABERDEEN: The noble Earl had professed to describe the origin and progress of the National system of education in Ireland; but his description was by no means correct. The system of education was first established distinctly as a system of separate religious education, and of united secular education. It was established by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), in consequence of a recommendation of the House of Commons made in the year 1828, precisely to that effect. Shortly afterwards, it is true, a certain amount of religious instruction was engrafted upon the system as a joint education, and instead of all religious instruction being separated, there was an amount of religious instruction united with secular instruction. That change was introduced, I believe, in consequence of the opinion and counsel of two such enlightened men on the Board as the Most Reverend Prelate who was its President, and the late Archbishop Murray, whose liberal views were well known. But it must be apparent that a system of united religious instruction for Protestants and Roman Catholics must always be of a very limited character. Shortly after the establishment of the system, these two Prelates—who I may say were the cause of the introduction of the element of united religious and secular instruction, agreed upon certain Scripture Extracts, upon a volume of Sacred Poetry, and finally upon a work which I have no doubt is very valuable, namely, Lessons on the Truth of Christianity—a work which I should say might be studied with just as much advantage by persons of maturer years as by children in the public schools. But this work on the Truth of Christianity was always very much objected to by the Roman Catholics who managed these schools. A rule was consequently laid down, that if any parent objected to
364
the use of this book, it was then to be transferred to and used at a separate time, for religious instruction, and was no longer to be used in the system of joint religious instruction. Now, the noble Earl is quite mistaken in supposing that there is no joint religious education at this moment in the schools. The Scripture Extracts are used—there can be no question of rejecting that book from the schools. The volume of Sacred Poetry, also, is now used, as it always has been. The only question that has arisen concerns the work of the most rev. Prelate, namely, the Lessons upon the Truth of Christianity. That is, as it always has been, objected to very generally by the Roman Catholics who are interested in the schools and in their management; and that is the work which the Board have now determined not any longer to use as a part of the joint religious education; but it is used now in the schools in the separate religious instruction. This unfortunate difference, which I am sure every one must lament, originated in this circumstance—that in one of the district schools, under the management of the Board, the Roman Catholics interested in the school objected to the work upon the Lessons on the Truth of Christianity, and two of the Commissioners visiting the school removed the book from the joint instruction: This took place in the year 1849, while Archbishop Murray was living, and not, by the bye, since the eruption of that ultramontanism of which the noble Earl speaks. The step was taken in accordance with one of the rules upon which the system was founded—namely, that where a Roman Catholic parent objected to the use of those books, they should then be transferred to the separate religious instruction, instead of being used in the general religious education. This occurred in the district school of Clonmel. The Secretary to the Board, I believe, called the attention of the Committee to the fact, and I think it was in last September that the most rev. Prelate was made aware that one of the books that had been used jointly, was now, by the two Commissioners to whom I have alluded, transferred to the separate religious instruction. The most rev. Prelate objected to that change, and insisted upon the practice of reading the book in question being continued—a book, I must say, which, however admirable in itself, still was not such as was received by the Roman Catholic part of the community in the same manner as the other books I have named,

365
namely, the Scripture Extracts and the volume of Sacred Poetry. The most rev. Prelate, however, insisted that this book should be retained as a part of the united education. Many meetings took place, and there was much discussion on the subject. Now, however much I may approve of the book, and however much I may regret the separation of this work from the other school books which have been used with such good results, I must say that the ground upon which the most rev. Prelate founds his objection scarcely appears to me to be tenable. He denies that the Board have the power to reject any book which they have once authorised to be in the schools. That opinion, I think, will hardly tally with the letter of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) to the Duke of Leinster, which says that the Commissioners "shall exercise the most entire control over all the books to be used in the school." Well, I consider it is impossible to maintain that, while they have the power to introduce a book, they have not an equal power to withdraw it, when they deem such a step necessary. Therefore, I think the power of the Board can scarcely be disputed; and yet, as far as I can learn, the most reverend Prelate rests his sole objection upon that ground. Having stated that the noble Earl is entirely mistaken in supposing that there is no joint religious education retained in these schools, I will now refer to the liberal speech of my noble Friend which has been referred to, in which my noble Friend stated his opinion that it was impossible that any satisfactory system of education could be adopted in this country which had not a religious basis. Now, that is very true; but if there was a Roman Catholic population in England to the same extent as there is in Ireland, undoubtedly a different system of education would become indispensable. But I am sure the noble Earl who introduced this system must admit that it was entirely owing to the peculiar character of the population in Ireland, and not to any preference of this particular system, that he introduced the plan to which has name is attached, and which has conferred such immense advantages upon the people of Ireland. I say, my Lords, that I do not know anything which has proved so great a blessing to the people of Ireland as the National system of education; and, not-withstanding the differences which have occurred, I still trust that nothing will take place that will diminish the usefulness, or prevent even the extension of
366
system which has already achieved so much good, and from which we may hope to derive so much additional advantage. I admit that great differences of opinion have taken place, and I am sorry to say that I do not perceive any great probability of a better understanding being speedily arrived at. But although I cannot anticipate that such an understanding will be soon effected, yet I must say that the most reverend Prelate has not ceased to be a member of the Board. I have had no communication with any other member of the Board, and therefore I do not know the intention of any of the Commissioners. At present I am unable to say more. I admit that great differences of opinion exist; but I cannot go so far as to say that the most rev. Prelate does not at this moment remain a member of the Board. With regard to the Motion of the noble Earl for the production of the Resolution, there can be no objection to acceding to it, seeing that the document will, as a matter of course, have shortly to be laid before Parliament. I have only to add that, sincerely regretting, as I do, the difference which has taken place, and of which I have stated the grounds, and the only grounds, namely, the removal of a single book written by the most reverend Prelate from the joint education to the separate education—and much as I appreciate the consequences to which it may lead, I still see nothing in this difference which makes me to augur at all unfavourably of the successful progress and ultimate results of the system which has been so happily introduced into Ireland.
The EARL of HARROWBYasked whether it was the fact that the objection of any single parent to the reading of any religious schoolbook by his child would justify the withdrawal of any book from the whole school?
The EARL of ABERDEEN: One of the fundamental rules of the Board—Rule 8, I think it is—provides that where the parent of any child objects to the joint study of any one of these books, the book shall be transferred to the separate instruction; but that rule has been modified recently. A member of the Board has moved and carried an alteration of that rule, and the matter is now under a different regulation.
LORD MONTEAGLEcould state from his own knowledge that the Scripture Lessons had been uniformly read in the model schools in Dublin, as well as in many of the best National schools in Ireland, during the hours for imparting united instruction. Of course, the reading of these books ought

367
not to be forced upon any child in opposition to the conscientious objections of a parent; but to allow a single negative on behalf of a solitary child to alter the whole course of instruction of a school, was a proposition too monstrous to be capable of being defended; and certainly, whatever might have been the formal rule of the Board, such had never hitherto been the practice in any National schools that he had inspected. To give a liberum veto in mixed schools to single members of the religionists of each side, must end in encouraging each party to blackball the books of their opponents, until the whole system of instruction would be reduced to an absolute Caput mortuum.
The EARL of ABERDEENexplained. The veto given to a single parent was not new, but was the old system, and had always existed until last week;—for it was only last week that the alteration was made which prohibited the parent of a single child from causing a book to be transferred from the united to the separate instruction. The alteration was this: instead of that arbitrary rejection of a book from the united education, it was now laid down, not that the book shall be rejected, but that the child shall be transferred to a separate class.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that if that were so, it was a practice to which he, for one, had no objection, and he was very glad that the fears he had expressed were unnecessary. He could not but agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) that the power of the Board to introduce a school book implied an equal power to withdraw the book, if the step were called for. The present debate was in one respect curious if not instructive. He could not help noticing the sudden love of the Scripture Lessons which had been evinced by those high Protestant authorities who used to denounce them as something like a sacrilegious mutilation of the Bible. He, on the contrary, had always regarded those extracts as a happy selection, which pupils of all denominations might unite in reading; they had received the sanction of the most eminent Roman Catholic authorities, for the late Bishop Doyle gave his assent to them, as well as Archbishop Murray. He had heard with the greatest satisfaction the explanation of the noble Earl at the head of the Government; and be thought that nobody had a right to quarrel with the change which had taken place if it merely amounted to this—that books to which objections were raised might be transferred from one part of the school
368
instruction to another, and that in the case of an objection raised by a single parent, the book objected to should still continue to be read by the school at large, but the one child objecting should be allowed to withdraw during this portion of the school teaching.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that if the question were as had been stated by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), and as had been repeated by his noble Friend on the cross-benches (Lord Monteagle), he should have dissented from the grounds on which it was said that the most rev. Prelate had thought fit to object; but, although he spoke under the correction of the noble Earl, who was so much better acquainted with the particular circumstances of the case than he possibly could be, he was very much afraid that the noble Earl had wholly mistaken the effect which had been attributed to the resolution alluded to, and that, so far from that resolution being of the character which the noble Earl had ascribed to it, it affirmed precisely the opposite principle. In the first place, the noble Earl, at the commencement of his observations, stated that in the first instance it was intended that the system of education should be one of combined secular and separate religious instruction. To a certain extent, undoubtedly, that was the case; but the noble Earl had fallen into a slight error when he stated that the introduction of the Scripture Lessons and of other religious works in the hours of combined instruction, was an after-thought, and not included in the original plan. If the noble Earl would refer to the paragraph which had been quoted, he would then see that it was intended from the very first that religious instruction should to a certain extent be imparted during the hours of combined education. The passage in the paragraph was as follows:—
"Although it is not designed to exclude from the list of books for the combined instruction such portions of sacred history or religions and moral books which have been approved of by the Board, it is to be understood that it is by no means intended to convey a perfect or sufficient religious instruction, or to supersede the necessity of separate religious instruction on the days set apart for that purpose."
Therefore, in the first instance, there was intended to be separate books in every case for separate religious instruction, and, in addition to that, the Board reserved to themselves the discretion of introducing, as shortly afterwards they did introduce, books which had been compiled so that they could not be objected to either by

369
Roman Catholics or Protestants, which did contain, and which afforded so long as they were in use, a very considerable amount of Scriptural knowledge to Roman Catholic and to Protestant children sitting in the same room, and receiving instruction together. That course was pursued until the year 1844, when the practice was introduced to which the noble Earl had just adverted. He alluded to the practice introduced by Rule 8. In the report which was issued by the Commissioners in that year, they stated that they had established a number of schools, which were attended by thousands of children, and they had succeeded in compiling several works, containing a series of lessons grounded on Holy Writ, which were used in the general instruction afforded in all the schools. But in that year, also, and in order to meet objections which had been raised by several members of the Roman Catholic community, these books were not insisted on, but only strongly recommended, and the rule was adopted to which his noble Friend had referred. That rule was, most unfortunately worded very ambiguously. It said—
"The Commissioners do not insist on the Scripture Lessons, Lessons on the Truth of Christianity, or book of Sacred Poetry, being read in any of the National schools, nor do they allow them to be read during the time of secular or literary instruction"—
This was a departure from the original plan—
"in any school attended by children whose parents or guardians object to their being so read. In such case the Commissioners prohibit the use of them, excepting at the times of religious instruction, when the persons giving it may use these books or not, as they think proper."
That resolution was, as their Lordships would see, unfortunately worded most ambiguously. It did not allow the books in question to be used in those schools attended by children whose parents or guardians objected to their use. Under that rule it must appear doubtful whether these books were to be excluded on the objection of the parent of any single child, or whether that child was to be protected from the risk of being compelled to read them, by receiving permission to leave the room. From 1844 downwards there had always been, to a certain extent, a difference of opinion with regard to the construction of that rule; and the general practice, he believed, had been that protection had been afforded to the child, by its being permitted to withdraw when these books were being read. At the same time
370
he must say that, although the Scripture Lessons were read, and were in fact a most essential part of the system pursued in the model school at Dublin, and which ought therefore to be the model according to which all the other schools under the control of the Board should be framed and conducted, he had good reason to know it had been discovered that in the model school at Clonmel, which was entirely under the control of the Commissioners themselves, these Scripture Lessons had been excluded from the hours of ordinary combined education. Now he though that, whatever might he the case with regard to schools under the management of private individuals, it was most unfortunate that upon a point of such importance, any deviation from the ordinary practice should be allowed in schools under the direct control and management of the Board, and especially in those schools which were to be regarded as models fur the rest of the country. Unless he was greatly mistaken—and he received his information from one of the Commissioners—the decision at which the Commissioners arrived the other day was entirely opposed to the sense attached to this rule by the noble Earl opposite. A Motion was made at the board by Mr. Baron Greene, one of the three dissenting Commissioners, to the effect that protection should be given to the children of parents objecting to the use of the book, and not to the exclusion of the books themselves; but a majority of the Commissioners decided against Mr. Baron Greene, the late Lord Chancellor Blackburne, and another Commissioner—the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin) not being present—that the rule should be interpreted according to its strict literal sense, and consequently that the objection of any one Roman Catholic child would be held sufficient to exclude a book. The noble Earl might be correct in the view he took of the matter, and he (the Earl of Derby) might be wrong. He could only say that he had this statement from Mr. Blackburne himself, and that the object of Mr. Baron Greene's resolution was to give to the rule the sense which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle), and he thought the great majority of their Lordships, would consider the sound and rational construction. Mr. Baron Greene's resolution was, however, negatived by a very considerable majority. He (the Earl of Derby) considered, then, that there had been a very important deviation, in a very essential particular, from the original rule;

371
and it appeared as if there was an influence at work for the purpose of excluding from the National schools, in deference to the opinions of the Roman Catholic priesthood, all books which gave to the system of education anything of a religious character. If this were the case, it would be impossible to resist the force of an argument which had hitherto been met by the statement that although the religious instruction given, might in itself be insufficient, yet that a considerable amount of religious knowledge was imparted in all the schools to Roman Catholics and Protestants alike, and that for the purpose of obtaining the great benefit of the union of children of different persuasions for the purpose of education, it was necessary to abate something of what would otherwise be considered desirable with regard to the amount of religious instruction given to Protestant children alone. If the system was to be so altered as altogether to exclude all religious instruction with regard to Roman Catholic children frequenting the National schools, then he must say that one of the great and paramount objects contemplated by the original system would be defeated, and the system would be open to the objection which he thought could not hitherto be justly urged against it, that it was entirely and completely a system of secular education, disregarding religious instruction altogether. He would be very glad to find that the opinion of the noble Earl opposite was correct, and that would be ascertained when the resolution of the Board was laid upon the table, and when they found who proposed the resolution, and who composed respectively the majority and the minority. He admitted that the exclusion of the book upon the Evidences of Christianity was not a reason which he would think sufficient for breaking up the Board; but, on the other hand, if the resolution was to be regarded in the sense he had been led to believe, and if a prevailing intention was gaining ground of excluding more and more religious instruction, of which even now too little was given, he would say that was a fatal impediment to the working of a system; that it must be fatal to its beneficial effects; and that in such a case those Protestant members of the Board who could not conscientiously assent to a diminution of the amount of religious instruction given would not only be justified, but bound to withdraw from further connexion with a system which, from the first, depended upon the mutual and harmonious
372
working of members of different religious persuasions, upon the sound sense exercised by both parties, and upon the balance being impartially held between Protestants and Roman Catholics. If, however, Protestants were to be outvoted on questions of this kind at the meetings of the Board, he could not but come to the conclusion that a system intended to work for the benefit of all classes and all creeds had been most injuriously departed from.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, that the resolution of the Board bore the interpretation which he had affixed to it, and that the noble Earl had been misinformed as to its effect. He had the resolution proposed by Mr. Baron Greene in his hands, and it had been carried with the exception of the words which involved the compulsory continuance of the book on the Evidences of Christianity. The Eighth Resolution admitted of two interpretations, one of which was supported on the one side, and an opposite one on the other. And the recent resolution ran thus:—
"The Commissioners do not insist on the Scripture Lessons, or the book of Sacred Poetry, being read in any of the National schools; nor do they allow them to be read as part of the ordinary school business (during which all children, of whatever denomination they may be, are required to attend), in any school attended by children whose parents or guardians object to their being read by their children. In such eases, the Commissioners prohibit the use of these books, except at times set apart for the purpose, either before or after the ordinary school business, and under the following conditions. Firstly, that no child whose parent or guardian objects shall be required, directly or indirectly, to be present at such reading. Secondly, that in order that no child whose parent or guardian objects may be present at the reading of the books above specified, public notification of the time set apart for such reading shall be inserted in large letters in the time table of the school; that there shall be a sufficient interval between the conclusion of the ordinary school business and the commencement of such reading; and that the teacher shall immediately, before its commencement, announce distinctly to the pupils that any child whose parents or guardians so desire may then retire. Thirdly, that in every such case there shall be, exclusive of the time set apart for such reading, sufficient time being devoted each day to the ordinary school business, in order that those children who do not join in the reading of the books may have ample time for literary instruction in the schools."
The EARL of DERBYsaid, it appeared to him that this resolution retained the ambiguous language of the eighth resolution; that at the hours of combined instruction the Scripture Extracts are not to be read in schools attended by children whose parents object; and that, conse-

373
quently, under that resolution, it would be competent to a single child to object to these lessons being read during the hours of combined instruction, and demand their removal to the period before or after those hours of combined instruction: so that, practically, any single child had the power of putting a veto upon the book during the hours of combined instruction.
The EARL of HARROWBYsaid, that after the turn the discussion had taken, it was unfair to taunt those who had contended for the reading of the Bible with now contending for the reading of the Scripture Extracts, when they saw the opponents of Scriptural instruction succeed in the entire exclusion of them; because it had formerly been the great argument against the advocates of Scripture reading that the Scripture lessons were admitted.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had never heard any suggestion before now of the right of a parent or a guardian to object to a book in such a manner as to alter the discipline in practice at a school, and he did not think such an interpretation of the rule could be allowed to prevail.
The EARL of DONOUGHMOREsaid, admitting that the Established Church of Ireland did not represent the great body of the people of that country, he thought it should be treated fairly. He had received a letter from Ireland, which stated that, a few days ago, in one of the National schools in that country all the Roman Catholic children came forward, and objected to the reading of the Scripture Extracts, which had heretofore been used in the school. It appeared to him very plain that if the resolution was to be understood as it was explained by the noble Earl opposite, the Roman Catholics would succeed in carrying their point, for the resolution invited the opposition of persons who objected to the use of the Scripture Extracts. Taking the case of a school composed almost entirely of Protestants—of the children of members of the Established Church, and of Presbyterians—if there was one Roman Catholic child in that school he might prevent the use of the Scripture Extracts during the hours appointed for combined instruction. He could only repeat his opinion that this regulation struck at the root of the whole system.
On Question, agreed to.

PUBLIC HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the Motion that the House should go into Committee on this Bill,
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that the present Bill was similar to two Bills on the same subject, which had been in former Sessions introduced into their Lordships' House. The first of those Bills had been carried by a large majority in the House of Commons; but it was not thought desirable to press the further progress of the Bill on account of the accumulation of public business, and the late period of the Session. The second Bill was not proceeded with for a similar reason, and the promoters of the Bill now before their Lordships had thought it advisable to introduce this Bill in the House of Commons during the present Session. The Bill, which had undergone considerable discussion, had passed about the 5th of July last. This Bill was somewhat different from the other Bills to which he had alluded, especially as regarded the court of licences and appeal, which it was thought advisable to omit, as it was not considered that any necessity existed for making an alteration in the system of granting licences in Scotland. He was sorry to say that Scotland had unfortunately obtained an unenviable notoriety for intemperance, and he did not think their Lordships would sanction any unnecessary temptation to the indulgence of that vice. A very interesting statistical report had been recently made on this subject by 200 gentlemen of Edinburgh, which had been confirmed by the chief magistrate of that city, and which presented some startling revelations. It appeared that out of a population of 155,680 by the late census (or perhaps 160,000 in the present day), 41,796 persons had visited public-houses in one day, and of this number 11,981 were women, 4,631 were children under fourteen years of age, and 3,032 children under eight years of age. He must here remark that there existed in Scotland a system peculiar to that country and to Ireland—namely, the power granted to grocers of selling spirits over their counters. Such a system was most demoralising in its effects, for many women would go into grocers' shops who would not go into public-houses to drink, and when they had change to receive, they not unfrequently took spirits instead. Nay, more, husbands often found considerable sums set down in their accounts for groceries, which they discovered were for spirits supplied to their wives. He would remark that only one petition had been presented against this Bill, and that was by a noble Lord this evening. He had been told that the public-houses of

375
Scotland had the power of returning all the Members for the boroughs, and therefore he had entertained some doubts as to the passing of the Bill in the House of Commons: but the evil sought to be remedied by the Bill was so great that it had been passed without a division. The Bill was intended, in the first place, to abolish the present system of selling spirits over the counter in grocers' shops. Another provision of the measure placed the public-houses—which were now under the supervision of the Excise authorities, who were generally unwilling to prosecute—under the regulation of the police. At present, also, in Scotland, a beer licence could not be granted separately from a spirit licence. If a person obtained a beer certificate, he had a right to demand a spirit licence. The Bill proposed to separate the two, and enacted that no one certificate should be issued enabling persons to sell beer and spirits. It was very desirable to encourage the consumption of beer in Scotland, for a marked difference was observable on the borders between the whisky-drinking and beer-drinking population, Another remedy for intemperance in Scotland would be the admission of light wines at a small duty; and if they could adopt such commercial regulations as would enable them to import light wines from France, it would, to a great extent, put an end to the intemperance which unhappily existed in Scotland.
House in Committee.
Amendments made.
The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

COPYHOLDS BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the recommitment of this Bill,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Copyholds Act provided, that when any money was paid for the enfranchisement of copyhold land it should be either paid into the Bank of England in the name of the Accountant of the Court of Chancery, or else should be placed in the hands of some trustees, and the interest of it paid to the party whose manor had been enfranchised. In the case of ecclesiastical corporations in the possession of manorial rights, whether corporations sole or aggregate, they had in this way received the interest of the moneys so paid for enfranchisement. Under the Act passed the year before last, enabling the Episcopal and Capitular Commission to enfran-
376
chise, the same process took place, but with this difference—that, though the money was paid in, as in the other case, instead of the whole of the interest going to the ecclesiastical corporation, so much only was paid as was an equivalent on a fair calculation for what had been received in respect to the manor as it stood before enfranchisement, and the surplus, if any, went to the Commissioners for ecclesiastical purposes. The object of this Bill was to regulate the enfranchisement with respect to these corporations, and to provide that for the future, with respect to any enfranchisement entered into by the Capitular Commissioners, the money should be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be applied according to the provisions of the Act.
House in Committee (on recommitment); Bill reported without Amendment.
Amendment made, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.